- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
No, they can’t. Even if the Supreme Court says they can, they can’t.
If they rule that a president is above the law, they are effectively creating a monarchy. All divine rights bestowed upon someone by virtue of existence.
Isn’t this one of the big reasons americans defend their rights to bear arms? To prevent/remove a tyrannical government?
Yeah, ruling in the favour of this would be a massive Pandora’s box and I’m not sure the supreme court would want that at that moment. If Trump were President they would probably agree though.
It’s a litmus test of division. Will the people cheer on their own downfall and descend into fascism? Yes as long as their team is winning.
If no one ever faces any real consequences, then sure they can.
Unless a citizen is willing to enforce that notion upon him, the truth is that he can.
Unfortunately, reality is proving that this is not the case.
Considering that he was trying to stall his other trials until after the election, he did get away with this one.
Everyone remember that whole part about never having a king? That the US had a president INSTEAD of a king?
Jesus.
Read the fucking Declaration of Independance into the case record.
Well let’s take a look at the cases he’s involved in:
DC: Case is currently being stalled as the Supreme Court settles the question of Presidential immunity. The Supreme Court is poised to actually grant him at least a partial victory as it looks like they are going to grant him immunity for “official acts” and then send the case to the lower courts to determine what “official acts” even are. Under a best-case scenario, this would cause this trial to be delayed, most likely for several years, allowing Trump to avoid consequences due to the delay, his ability to have the cases dismissed if he wins in November, and/or simply running out the clock and dying of natural causes before a trial ever happens.
Florida: If the SC grants Trump full or partial immunity, the same thing will happen here. At best, the case will be delayed for several years while the courts sort out what is and isn’t an “official act”. Further, this case is being overseen by someone who has already been shown to be in Trump’s back pocket, and there’s a very high likelihood that she will just classify everything Trump did as an “official act” and just dismiss the case entirely. She has already repeatedly tipped her hand and made her desire to have this case dismissed with prejudice abundantly clear, and this would be the perfect opportunity for her to do that.
Georgia: Fani Willis has already done significant damage to this case and her reputation due to her inability or unwillingness to keep her personal and professional life separate. If Trump were to get his phone call, for example, classified as an “official act”, it’s most likely the case falls apart pretty quickly as that phone call is one of the cornerstones of the whole thing. This case is in danger on a number of levels beyond a potential SC ruling that could end up being the fatal blow.
New York: This is the least consequential of all of the cases he’s facing. Nothing much really changes here; the entire premise of the case is on shaky legal ground that was going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court should Trump be found guilty anyway. And it seems that the judge – just like all of the others before him – has absolutely no appetite for holding Trump to account; he’s refused to rule on not one but TEN gag order violations that Trump has already committed, so far refusing to even levy the paltry $10,000 fine that would be pocket change to Trump. There is no reason to believe that this judge would even be willing to impose any kind of significant punishment on him even if he were to be found guilty.
So while there’s a possibility I could be wrong in my assessments of the case, at this point, I believe the answer to the question is yes. The President apparently really can get away with anything. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
